If you were a TBM when LDS changed the Endowment Ceremony in 1990, what were there thoughts when this happened? Were you confused? Happy? Bothered by it? Did it affect your testimony at all or did you simply see it as an improvement and God can change things "to fit the times?"

I was relieved, as they took out the stuff that bothered me the most. At the time, I was pretty sure they had changed the ceremony because people weren't comfortable with the penalties and such, which meant fewer people were attending the temple.

It didn't bother me, as I figured God could change whatever He wanted.

The most startling thing was when the music started. I had heard about the content changes, but I wasn't expecting music.

Wait, there wasn't music? Any?

I haven't been since the changes were promulgated.

in Fact, A LONG TIME before...

gotta/sorry to admit: Going there put me in a trance.

I've been inquisitive since Day 1 of my life; that didn't mix well with being Mo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2012 04:46PM by guynoirprivateeye.

Not long after I first went to the temple (back in the late 60s), I was sitting in the waiting room with some of my ward members. They were talking about the ceremony, and how someone they knew was bothered by the changes in wording that had happened recently.

One of them stated that there had been MANY changes over the years (he would have first attended in the 30s). He mentioned that we no longer took an oath of vengence against the government. I was amazed but said nothing at the time.

During MY 15 years of attending, there were some wording changes that I observed myself. For example, the law of chastity used to be (for men) "no sex with the daughters of Eve" (words to that effect). Later, it was changed to "no sexual relations except with your legally wedded wife."

Whew! That let me off the hook, since I never did have sex with any of the daughters of Eve, until after I married my ex-wife.

Now, the sons of Adam.... that's another matter.

I remember my parents telling me that the session used to be much longer and complicated. They did seem a little nervous about me going, though they needn't have been since I was at my TBM height and would have accepted pretty much anything... I was a little off put by the anointing ceremony as I was naked under a poncho while another guy was "blessing" me. (no inappropriate touching, but a little warning would have been nice)

I think they (my parents) mentioned something about how it was a relief that it was now shorter. Any changes they just attributed to going from "live" to "film", so to them, it wasn't a "change" it was just a different medium. If they noticed the other differences that came up, they never mentioned them and probably took them all in stride, or didn't notice since they probably did like everyone else and napped though most of it.

Now, when I found out that the ceremony I survived was different, and the differences included what oaths were taken, that there were penalties and other doctrine based changes were made, that was a pretty significant blow to my "faith". I was always taught that these things were "eternal" and "unchanging" and directly inspired from the big HF himself... So, if that were the case, how could they change so very dramatically... even the garment changed dramatically... How could eternal things change so much??? Well, because they just weren't eternal at all and were changed to meet the comfort and morality of the time.

had entered into a condition of complete apostasy.

(so creepy I only went back for one more session and one sealing) I never went thru the 1990 changes. But, I read an article about them in the Washington Post and have since seen the entire changes on the net.

<<Shaking my head>>... TSCC will do just about anything to keep the members paying, praying, and obeying, including changing "sacred" stuff. What a crock! So obvious the whole organization is a corporation with a PR Department and not a church. It should be LD$ Inc.

I actually got a TR to go, but my ex could never guilt me into going. I hated it. I went maybe 4 or 5 times under duress.

I found my TR a few years back that was signed right after 1990 started, but never did go.

I think the main thing I felt was relief that it was a good bit shorter because they'd taken out some of the return & report repetition.
There were a lot of things I didn't like in the temple ceremony, (in fact most of it!) but all the repetition really drove me mad. It was still pretty bad after the changes but at least it was an improvement.
One thing I could never understand was how a lot of members would go to the temple for the day or even a week, & come out of one session & straight into the next one all day long.
How anybody could do that was beyond me, as one session was all I could ever cope with at a time, & most of that I just switched myself off to what was going on & thought my own thoughts.

as to whether the church was true or not as I was TBM when they changed it. I remember when I went through for the first time and screwed up on the disemboweling thing. The officiator caught it and had the whole room do it over again. I was kind of embarassed, but thought that the whole thing was like the sacrament prayer that had to be done act for act, word for word perfect. In any case what if I were paralyzed or an amputee? The point of having one do it in my behalf would be a mute point as I wouldn't be able to disembowl myself anyway.

For a long time after the 1990 changes removed the representation of the penalties, I would still automatically start doing the slashing actions because I was in such a zombie robotic mode. Of course, I would catch myself and stop.

It was a long time before it felt natural to NOT mime the penalties. (Yeah, go ahead and call me a mindless robot. I had to not think about it or my head would explode.)

I thought it was an understandable change, but the fact that they just changed it without any real explanation made me begin to think that the whole thing is a sham. If it is changed whenever it becomes somehow unacceptable for the era, that must mean it's not inspired.

I have known for a long time that it was copied from Freemasonry but when I learned that JS became a Mason very shortly before instituting the ceremonies that way, I knew it was all made up. He and his friends established a Masonic Lodge and since he was the boss, he zoomed himself through all the levels of Masonry immediately instead of the slow progression that was customary. He essentially made a farce of Masonry. He always wanted to be the grand poobah.

I got endowed shortly after they ended the miming of the gut slashing part. However, I did know through history that they used to wear garments that went to their wrists and ankles.

The fact that they had changed made me think, but not enough to push me to doubt or question. I thought, odd, how come back then they would wear so much clothes but now, its a t shirt and down to the knee?

When I completed my first endowment, I came home, and I changed into my jockey underwear and took off to hang out with friends. I couldnt wear the bastards as they were too hot. my skin is sensitive so I always had a prob with them. My mission I was able to wear them, although I was misserable. When I got back, I didn't wear them at all.

I hated the fucken things, and I debated them to my bishops cuz they never made them for comfort. It felt like they cut a plast bag out and told me to wear them. I got angry that god would want me to feel so uncomfortable with my package not being supported like a prefer.

Its a joke when I look back on it. Even if the church is true, the underwear has got to go, God or no God.

Ok, I am a little drunk and cant type worth a shit, but you know what I mean.,,,

I had no experience whatsoever with the change to the endowment ceremony. Nobody bothered speaking to me about it while I was in the church.

Had I gone through it as it was practiced before 1990, I'd have interrupted it at the first blood oath, denounced the church, then left immediately. I wouldn't even bother a change of clothes - I'd just have just gone to the locker, taken back my stuff, then left in temple garb (later mailing back whatever crap they had me wearing).

It is an obviously Satanic practice, and I'd rather face the penalties than accept them.

Before I served a mission in 1988, I attended the temple ceremony to become an endowed member of the church. Part of this was to perform the act of cutting our throats and cutting our bodies as to "spill our bowels" if we were to expose what we do in the temple or share any of the sacred secrets with others outside the church. We were never to talk about what happens in the temple with anyone.

Upon my return in 1990, I attended the temple in Oakland California. I was nervous because I knew what was coming up in the ceremony and I was worried that my young Mormon fiancee would be scared about the blood oath section. The ceremony was the same until we reached the part where we were to act the part of cutting ourselves. To my surprise, the entire part of the blood oath was removed! I remember walking out thinking to myself, "what is going on here and why did this change"? Well its obvious as to why it would change, its just plain scary and creepy that we would be commanded to take a blood oath in the temple.

For some reason, I never thought to question why they changed. I was just very relieved that I didn't have to do the creepy stuff ever again.

I thought it was just another response to criticism--no different than the policy change regarding blacks, polygamy, etc. I was glad the change was made but then I thought why was it made?? I could only conclude it was due to criticism. While it is still so GD weird, it was even weirder before

I WAS TICKED OFF!

I was 18, and had waited my entire life to go through that stoooopid ceremony, and they go and chang it????

I felt like I was going to get the "watered down" version, and it would risk my salvation.

It was the beginning of the end for me.

I was long out and didn't care, but it was more proof that God's church is not the same yesterday, today, and forever. Of course, I already knew that.

I went through in 1990 after the changes. My TBM mother made a comment about how happy she was about the changes, but I never knew what the changes were until I left the church.

I heard the news on over-the-air radio while on a business trip. I wasn't surprised.

So, I've attended a bunch of blood-and-gut spilling sessions with devil-inspired protestant preachers and the five points of fellowship through the veil, but I never made it to the more user-friendly version. Now I'm an evil, lying, apostate, bigot, hater if I bring it up.

Hey, it's not my fault the church isn't true, and the church is making it up as it goes along.

The oaths and penalties of the pre-1990 ceremony demonstrated - to me - and likely others - high evidence that the ceremony was/(still is) not based upon Christian principles.

It is unchristian to believe that Christ's atonement does not cover the divulging of priesthood names, keys - anything.

Is the telling of temple ceremony dialog so egregious that it requires suicide?

The blood of Jesus can't satisfy the requirement of justice? (if it is a sin)


Observers of Mormonism are correct in using the temple ceremony (even today) as evidence that the Joseph Smith brand of Christianity is simply not Christian.

Regarding remaining temple ordinances - the whole lot is unchristian.

I get angry every time I think about the damn thing.

what bothered / bothers me Most about it is the link between 'people don't like it' / 'Things never change' to implementing changes at 'convenient' times.

FWIW, I also had the same thought re Blacks/PH.

Probably other examples also, I just don't have them right now; those are Certainly the Top Two.

I learned about this in the 80's as an exmo. My reaction was that it was about time that they got the nakedness and blood out of the masquerade ball. "Put your right foot in..."

DH & I had been sealed in the Provo temple & felt like we made those awful 'covenants' in good faith. When they were removed, we were relieved but wondered what we were supposed to do with the 'covenants' we originally made. Were we still obligated or were we released from them? Stupid, I know. I wondered why there was no revelation about the blood oaths being removed. I never liked going to the temple anyway, & this just added to my revulsion. All that stand up, take this off, switch it around, put this back on, sit down - it was like a twisted adult version of the hokey pokey.

I was a deacon at the time, so I didn't know what was going on. I did however, remember going through the temple years later, and my Dad telling me on the way home, that I was lucky, because they had shortened the ceremony a lot, and I remember thinking, WTF?

I had started reading things that were causing me to question the church about four months before this happened. This only caused me to question it more. It still took me another 15 years to fully get out.

I dropped out of the church in the late 1970s, so I wasn't keeping track of things. I learned of the changes here at RFM. I chuckled. Good old never-changing church changing again.

I was actually part of the group that helped break the story of the temple changes.

I was active with Ex-Mormons For Jesus at the time, and we had relationships with a number of active Mormons who were disillusioned and enjoyed hanging out with us. The ministry had a storefront bookstore at the time in Santa Fe Springs, CA.

We received a call one afternoon from one of our Mormon friends telling us they'd just gone through the Los Angeles temple, and there were big changes. We struggled for a while trying to figure out how to confirm the changes, when one of us said, "Let's call the temple and ask them."

I was a semi-professional writer at the time, so I looked up the number and gave them a call. I said to the woman who answered the phone, "Hello, my name is XXX XXX, and I'm a writer here in Southern California. I'd like to confirm that there have been some significant changes in the temple ceremony." I think the poor woman almost fainted. She may not have been a stutterer before, but she certainly was when she finally blurted out, "J-J-J-Just a moment, please."

The phone remained quiet for about a minute, when finally a man came on the line. I asked him to identify himself and spell his name. I had been put through directly to the temple president.

I still very vividly recall his strained response to the question. I don't have my original notes, but he essentially said, "There have been no changes in the message of the ceremony." I pressed about any specific wording changes, and he admitted there had been changes to the text.

Within a couple of hours we were able to confirm the removal of the penalties. We contacted a radio ministry that broadcasts nationally, "The Bible Answer Man." They put it on the air that same afternoon.

I went home that night and composed a press release and called every major news outlet I could think of to get their fax number to send the press release. I stayed up most of the night faxing the press releases out.

First thing in the morning we started getting phone calls from media outlets at our Santa Fe Springs office. The New York Times was our biggest catch, and they ran with a front page article above the fold. It was a very exciting week for us.

It's about time. So much of it was so "outdated" and didn't make much sense anyhow.
It all only applies to the believers, so I don't know why anyone else cares. But it's big news even when the Catholic Church changes their "replies" in their service.